click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
is going to take a more, i would say rational approach to how to deal with their own economy and how they deal with their own people, and how they deal internationally. and so i think generally there's been a feeling that there might be some hope there. however, now we are approaching, once again, a potential violation of a u.n. security council resolution, and we encourage the leadership in north korea to consider what they are doing here and implications in the overall security environment on the korean peninsula, as well as destination. >> anything new? we been hearing some rumblings for some time that there might be some activity on that front. anything new that you can provide in terms of insights into launches or things like that? >> well, i think you're tracking a pretty well. i think from the media today there are indications declared indications of their intention to do what they would call a peaceful satellite launch. and we believe it is in contradictory to the u.n. security council resolutions, that because of the nature of the type of missile they will be firing and the
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
of the biggest thing is that is killing the economy is something so big you got to say to yourself how come they can't take a little bit less to back up on its seat? >> guest: i am going to disagree with you a little bit. if you look at the percentage of investment, the exploration production of energy is very heavily involved, it is a very expensive item, and their profits are five to 8% on what they actually invest. microsoft and intel are much more profitable and they pay less in taxes than the percentage of the total revenue. so, people always focus on the gas prices. look at your heating bill. the natural gas movement brought down the price of natural gas about 80% of what we produce in terms of my state. it's about a quarter of what it was three years ago. that isn't always a good deal for the american people. it's actually bringing the industry back. this industry which is often vilified quite frankly is the one that is generating more jobs, more income, more opportunity than almost any other sector and it isn't as profitable as the high-tech. >> host: nelson in colorado springs. >>
's credibility, and it's important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced and that means significant revenues, and it has to go around. typically that means the wealthy and well off have to pay their fair share as well. again, these are not new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate. even foreign policy debate. and so we think that the american people are on the side of the president and democrats. that is not to say -- [inaudible] we want to remind everyone that there's already been a trillion dollars, over a trillion dollars in spending cuts. and so that is a significant part of this debate, because it happened last year. but just because washington has a short memory doesn't mean we all should have one. and that there's already been sacrifice on behalf of through those discretionary cuts. we are particularly excited doing a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we talked about medical savings through the programs, address rising national expenditure. will have more to say on taxes, but we are ecstatic to have senator durbin here
that this is a self-inflicted wound on our economy, you're exactly right, our current policy. we're educating brilliant students and then compelling them to go to work in shanghai or singapore rather than san antonio or the silicon valley. meanwhile, we're handing out tens of thousands of diversity visas to immigrants chosen by a random lottery, without regard to any qualifications they might when it comes to job creation and entrepreneurship. it makes absolutely no sense. i believe we need an immigration policy that serves our national interest. and if there's one thing that we need more than anything else now is we need job creators and entrepreneurs in the united states. and we know in the -- in the global economy, it's people with the special skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics are the ones that are going to help us create jobs and grow the economy. not just for these individuals, but for the people that are hired by the start-up businesses that they will create. the stem jobs act would mitigate the problem with the diversity lottery visa which, again, does not dist
actors. we can prove that america is still the leader of a global economy. people are watching. do we still have it. or, we can let a instruction is an and stagnation turn this country that we all love so much into a second place state. i spent a few days last fall meeting with the european leaders as they are about a week meeting of finance ministers, head of european commission, anybody can talk to try to get europe, both countries, as well as germany and finland, each with different points of view. also all the common view, they've got to find a way to work out all their differences to save the hero. and i believe they will. you can just see it, feel it, read between the lines, they are going to find a way. they will muddle through but they will find a way to get it done. these countries are also looking to us to be. and we need to lead. europe shows us the danger of uncertainty. we know the uncertainty just in this country. uncertainty leads businesses sitting at the sidelines. drags down investment economy, human capital, companies will postpone decisions next quarter. maybe the
that raising tax rates would be counterproductive at a time when our economy is -- is so weak and there is another opportunity here and that's for tax reform. the jobs crisis and the debt crisis are linked and the president's made that pointed. he sai-- and the president's mat point. he said that his priority in the grand bargain discussions, the fiscal cliff discussions is to make sure that we encourage economic growth and jobs and so we should use this as an opportunity to address the underlying problem as that are holding back our economy. an economy that's in tough shape today. unemployment is still stuck just below 8%. the projections c.b.o. have given us for next year, by the way, are continued anemic growth in the economy and, in fact, unemployment actually going up, not down. the economic case against just imposing higher taxes is really overwhelming. we all know if you tax something, people tend to do less of it. that's one reason why smoking is taxed, to push people to quit smoking. so i want to raise taxes on working, on saving and on investing. instead, we should e
the world as a very effective way of ensuring a decarbonization market driven way of our economy, and we've just published an energy bill and to let the control framework that would allow for new renewable investment to the rest of this decade. the industry has that, alongside the cast strategy. on the decarbonization target, as they say we're going to take a power in the bill to set a target but that would be a decision for after the next carbon budget which happens in 2016. that is a perfectly sensible and rational approach to take. >> cannot congratulate the chancellor on his statement that fair, transparent -- [shouting] >> is not only not rising but is falling in every year of this parliament? with 19 days to christmas, mr. speaker, can ask the chancellor which the family-friendly measures whether scrapping the fuel duty increase, freezing tax are raising the personal allowance next year he thinks will be most benefit for the family? >> what i would say to my honorable friend is with have to take some difficult decisions. we've had to take difficult decisions on welfare of bring alo
we can continue to develop policies to grow our economy through international trade and hopefully help advance the rule of law around the world. this is a good package that deserves our strong support. i urge -- i urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this bill. i believe that we have got to do more in the international trade world. earlier, due to the efforts of the distinguished chairman, senator baucus and his staff and my staff, we were able to get the korean, colombian and panamanian treaties through. these were steps in the right direction after all these years. to have this happen is going to be a wonderful thing i think for our country and really for russia itself, and it certainly is going to help us go down the line in doing what's best for our own trade. one of the other special things that's in this is it's going to cause russia to have to live up to some international trade and international intellectual property laws, international laws, and we in this country believe in obeying those laws, and i have to say russia, india and china have invaded intellectual
will have a fundamentally adverse impact on the global economy spent it's doing it now with china and japan. that's interesting, as you've got two of the biggest economies in the world in a nightmare situation that raises a fundamental question, and it's of ending this myth that economics draws people closer together. part of the title today is "mischief or miscalculation?." during the cold war, what was interesting is you can have 17 different spheres of contact with the soviets and if two and if to implement you it's about 15 others. there was a lot of heavy investment figuring out how to communicate and how to coordinate, how to deal with escalation, how do you talk about that. and in this era, when i look at the amount of time, particularly in the obama administration, even more so than the george w. bush of administration, you look at senior officials who go to asia, throughout the region, and also the discussion and attempt to courtney with china. there seems to be a lot of that to try to coordinate. but again coming back to jim steinberg was the fourth member of this panel would happ
when, as we all recall, our economy was thriving. under the senate-passed plan, a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra 150 bucks in taxes. in opposing the middle-class tax cuts act, republicans claim that it would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the top 2% of income earners. speaker boehner reiterated that line last week, saying, "it will hurt small businesses. it will hurt the economy." well, that is vintage republican political theory but it's just not supported by the facts. in a recent report, the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimated that extending the middle-class tax cuts would boost our national g.d.p., our gross domestic product, by 1.25% next year. it said the economic effects of extending only the middle-class rates are similar to those of extending all of the rates. why? because upper-income taxpayers are less likely to spend their tax savings back into the economy. in other words, c.b.o. reports we would get virtually no economic bang for our federal buck by extending the upper-income tax cuts the republicans are fighting for. c.b.o.'s anal
it is not growing as fast as the economy over time that is a highly acceptable result as far as i'm concerned. and secondly, i would simply point out because revenues are the main bone of contention, i think, i would simply point out that it would be good to remember that in the past forty years we have never achieved a balanced budget in this country except when revenues were equal to at least 19.8% of gdp. and i think there's a lesson in there for anybody who wants to learn it. i've got some other observations, i would rare wait with them. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. congressman frenzel you were the ranking member on the committee. you gave me a comment when i asked you to participate when you were in the minority in the minority but you did vote for the final package. i don't recall if you voted for the first package. i assume you did. welcome and thank you for your willingness to share your memories of that agreement. >> thank you. all the sponsors here, i'm honored to be sitting in a nice senator's seat with the luminaries who work so hard on that adventure, and first i think i
been sittingr hands on the sidelines in an increasingly global and dynamic economy. this is the first administration actually since f.d.r. not to ask for the ability to negotiate trade agreements using expedited procedures. and this is something unique, trade promotion authority in order to negotiate agreements. this administration has yet to even ask for it over the last four years. last year we finally passed the korea, panama and colombia export agreements. hopefully our bipartisan actions today to boost exports to russia will signal a new chapter, for us to engage as a congress and with the administration in a much more ambitious and proactive trade policy. i'm pleased this bipartisan bill received such broad support from republicans and democrats in the house, getting 365 votes, and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to now support this legislation before us. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: madam president, i understand now under the existing unanimou
to the economy. the mobile industry supports 3.8 million jobs contributing $195.5 billion to the u.s. gross domestic product and driving $33 billion in productivity improvements in 2011. with all that's gone wrong with our economy over the past several years, it is important that we as policymakers nurture the growth of the economy especially where growth is already happening. and, in fact, is exploding. we need to enact smart pro-growth policies as relates to spectrum. i know that the spectrum issue isn't easy to understand or to manage, but it is crucial that we seek to better manage this scarce resource and about it is possible allocate more of the scarce resource to the private sector where it can create jobs and grow the economy. that is the reasoning and purpose behind my amendment. the federal government controls a vast amount of the available spectrum for its own use. it is probably not all as efficiently managed as it could be. undoubtedly a substantial amount could be made available to create jobs and grow the economy. one of the low-hanging fruits we can deal with plm almost imme
as possible. we must build better infrastructure. america spends just 2.4% of its economy and infrastructure compared with 5% in europe, and 9% in china. we are to have 21st century economy and live in the real world, 2.4% is not sustainable and not acceptable. we must also accelerate the replacement of natural gas pipeline. during sandy, leaking gas field hundreds of fires including places that destroyed hundreds of homes. and find as you mention so eloquently, we must stop ignoring climate change. i serve on the house energy and commerce committee. science is clear. cutting carbon emissions over the long term is key to reducing the risk of extreme weather. so i thank you for the opportunity to testify, and look forward to working together to help our fellow americans feel from hurricanes and, to ensure that we're all better prepared for similar storms of the future. thank you so much. >> thank you represented. and i would go -- welcome. >> thank you, madam chairman. very much appreciate the invitation to speak before this committee today. i am very proud to represent staten island and broo
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15